Another Case for Hillary as Veep

John Amato at Crooks and Liars, who didn't take a position during the primary, tonight makes the case for Hillary as Obama's vice presidential candidate.

Do Biden, Bayh, Kaine or any other pick left standing represent his “change narrative?” No, because Obama is the narrative. He brings the change. He won the primary. Of course there are those that feel much differently. I’m just offering my thoughts. Many of my C&L writers don’t agree with me either. The blogosphere should be the place that we discuss these issues. There are so many undecided voters that I bet many of them are Hillary supporters. In my opinion her nomination would send a jolt of electricity throughout the country and into Denver.

I agree with John that Hillary vastly improves Obama's chances of getting elected because she will bring voters from the critical, not the tiny, swing states like Ohio and Florida. Even Pennsylvania isn't a lock for Obama.

Obama seems to be using his caucus state stratgy from the primaries -- going after little states -- to win the general election, and as I've opined many times, I think it's the wrong strategy. We need Ohio, PA, FL and MI. Colorado, Nevada, New Mexico and Virginia pale by comparison.[More..]

Obama needs blue-collar voters, rural voters, elderly voters and Latino voters in November. Younger voters and new voters won't carry the day. Hillary is his best bet with them.

I'm still not sure I want Hillary to be Obama's vice-presidential candidate. But I'd put my personal feelings aside and enthusiastically support the ticket if he selects her. I'll support the ticket regardless, unless the VP candidate is crime warrior Joe Biden, but it would be so much better to have a ticket I could clap for and mean it -- and with Hillary joining Obama, I could do that without reservation.

Will Obama make the right choice for the Democratic party? Probably not if he lets his ego get in the way. Let's hope that's not his Achilles heel.

< Public Enemy Reconsidering Performing at DNC | Late Night: Will You Still Love Me Tomorrow? >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    I always wished for a Dem candidate (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by inclusiveheart on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:29:39 PM EST
    that would try to get all of the states - big AND little - it appealed to my sense of fairness and my total boredom with watching candidates appear only in Ohio or Florida.

    I had no clue that anyone would be goofy enough to just concentrate on the small states though.  In my mind the big states were a given and the small states were smart strategy to build a meaningful win - to actually have the kind of mandate that Bush claimed in 2004 which he really did not have.

    If Obama had picked the right person for (5.00 / 13) (#4)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:29:55 PM EST
    the country, he would have announced Hillary the morning following the last primary.

    Anything he does now is for himself, and Hillary deserves so much better than that. She is a tireless worker for all the people of this country. She's not a wildcard, and she's not a tool for someone else's ambitions.

    Yes. (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Jeannie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:48:13 PM EST
    We can all see what would in it for Obama to choose her - but what would be in it for her? Everyone seems to think she would jump at it if it was offered. It is my (humble?) opinion that she would be really stupid to take the VP. It would likely end her chances to ever be president, and to be tied to a losing candidate and likely blamed for his failures would be the end of her effectiveness.

    I can't get into her head (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by Iris on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:11:44 AM EST
    but my instinct tells me Hillary would accept the position if offered, because to her it has never been about what is good for her, but what is good for the country and the Dem. party.

    It wouldn't be good for the country (none / 0) (#153)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:17:53 AM EST
    If Obama were to stick her in her office and give her nothing to do.

    There is no guarantee Hillary would be tasked to do anything at all as VP. Her hands would be so tied while he tried to figure out how to keep her from over-shadowing him.


    I've pondered on thought of Hilary as Veep (none / 0) (#200)
    by sociallybanned on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:06:20 AM EST
    If she accepts and is offered the slot, Obama would run second term, maybe hindering her ability to run for President after two terms of VEEP.  I seriously doubt she would run against him, IF, A BIG IF, he is elected and she was his veep in 2012 primaries.  We live in a fast pace nation, and Americans get tired of the old, quick.  If Obama screws up and Hilary is veep,  then Americans would view her as his "screwed up" administration.  Maybe?  However, I don't think our nation can wait to see what Hilary can do.  I would gladly be happy if she was Veep. The amazing things she could do with healthcare... just to get it kickstarted. Otoh, I can see Obama taking credit for her work.  It doesn't setlle well with me.   I don't care about the "making history".  I WANT A DAMN GOOD ADMINISTRATION, AND CONGRESS.  Unfortunately, I'm not convinced Obama can change this country.  

    I've asked a couple of times... (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:31:40 PM EST
    ...and no one has ever really provided a good reason why Clinton would even consider being VP.

    if you were Hillary, would you want to be anyone's vp, let alone obama's?  

    I just got the feeling she wanted to be (5.00 / 3) (#7)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:33:04 PM EST
    VP. It would be historic if he were actually elected with her as VP.

    I have no idea how you got that feeling (5.00 / 5) (#38)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:55:35 PM EST
    I don't know what she's thinking but if I were Hillary, I wouldn't want to perpetuate a stereotype of the more qualified woman playing second fiddle to the underqualified man.  Plus, they're going to put her in cold storage for 4 years.  PLUS, she can't really help the ticket all that much.  Obama still has to debate McCain.  He can't make Hillary do it for him.  His chances of getting elected are not going to improve all that much in the end with her on the ticket. He still is the target for all of the GOP attention.  If will just end up ruining her career, which is why Karl Rove, et al, are all for it.  
    It's just a bad deal for her all around.  I'm betting she turned him down.

    HUGE place in History (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:03:34 PM EST
    and also because she believes as fervently as Jeralyn and BTD and lots of other folks that even Obama is better than McCain and she is willing to do pretty much whatever it takes if it will help.

    Nonsense (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:07:58 PM EST
    We've had losing tickets with women VP candidates before.  There's nothing historical about that.  The only thing that would be historical is if she is in the number one spot.

    Well, nonsense to you, too! (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:50:03 PM EST
    We've not had losing "tickets," we've had one.

    More importantly, it's pretty clear Obama has a chance of winning with her on the ticket, so she has a very real chance of being the first woman VP.

    Hey, I don't want her to do it!  But I believe her sense of history and duty is very, very strong, far more than mine.


    Second that (5.00 / 2) (#152)
    by Iris on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:14:18 AM EST
    I don't think I could be as gracious and forgiving under the circumstances...which just makes it all the more ironic, tragic and disgusting that the CDS victims project the exact opposite onto her.

    NO (5.00 / 1) (#111)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:33:19 PM EST
    If Hillary really wanted to be VP, she would have pushed for the VP role.  She's not one to not go after what she wants, and with all the delegates she holds, she would have gotten it if she wanted it.  Hillary simply said that she would do whatever was asked of her to get the WH, and if asked, I think she (I hate to write this) would take it. But it would be a mistake for Hillary to take the VP.

    A big part of me (5.00 / 3) (#8)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:33:35 PM EST
    wants him to offer it to her because she deserves it. But in reality she deserved the nomination and I don't want her anywhere near the trainwreck that the Obama campaign is becoming.

    The only thing i would disagree with (5.00 / 0) (#84)
    by free the wm3 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:22:11 PM EST
    is that Obama's campaign is becoming a trainwreck.

    if he chooses her AND gives her (none / 0) (#10)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:34:39 PM EST
    a big role AND listens to her, he could win handily, IMO.

    Nada (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by dissenter on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:34:10 PM EST
    Political suicide especially with Obama

    I've consistently said that Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:39:33 PM EST
    Won't do it.  There's no reason for her to run with him.  She would risk being part of a losing ticket which would hurt her chances in 2012 or 2016.  Even if they won, he could be a disastrous President and that would hurt her chances too.  It's too risky for Hillary.  

    No (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:41:33 PM EST
    she's a political animal and she's well aware she and whatever advice she could bring to the table would be drastically minimized if not outright ignored.  She can also see the writing on the wall based on how his campaign is being run and whose in charge and she's beginning to believe (like many of us, perhaps) that he may not reach the White House in November.

    I believe she truly wants to do things that will make life better for all Americans.  I hope Obama feels the same way.  But I also think she realizes it would be impossible for her to do the work she would need to do with a Presidential Staff that probably still suffers from CDS.  Her hands would quite literally be tied and she would be the hapless scapegoat for any errors in judgment Obama made.  She'd forever be thanklessly "taking one for the team".  

    And God forbid her popularity with the American People EVER supersede his!  (shiver)

    Best to let Obama do what he's going to do and prepare for a run in 2012.


    It goes the other way, I think (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:56:48 PM EST
    She can also see the writing on the wall based on how his campaign is being run and whose in charge and she's beginning to believe (like many of us, perhaps) that he may not reach the White House in November.

    I think she's always thought he couldn't win, that both she and Bill believe that.  So, she would have to be convinced that he could win.  Has his campaign demonstrated that?  I can't read those tea leaves.


    I know it goes the other way (none / 0) (#61)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:06:13 PM EST
    No question about it.  Her whole case to the SDs, etc., has been that he cannot win.  But it's now fairly clear that he might win if she were on the ticket.  I believe absolutely she would do it if he asked.

    There's good reasons why she wouldn't., though (5.00 / 0) (#68)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:09:22 PM EST
    You have to admit.

    "Might win" might not be enough to show her that she needs to be on Obama's ticket to do the most good.


    I really don't think (5.00 / 2) (#132)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:52:27 PM EST
    she thinks that way.  Country first, party second, gender third, personal advantage fourth.

    Obviously, I don't know, and neither do any of us.  But that's my sense of her.


    I really don't think (none / 0) (#138)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:53:30 PM EST
    she thinks that way.  Country first, party second, gender third, personal advantage fourth.

    Obviously, I don't know, and neither do any of us.  But that's my sense of her.

    But it's surely a moot point.  Unless the O is a very different person than he's shown so far, he's not going to ask.


    Because Hillary, like many (5.00 / 6) (#24)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:48:10 PM EST
    strong smart women, doesn't need her ego stroked and is not doing this for any other reason that SHE can move the country forward.  Granted she may be limited with the male prez needing to get all the credit and be the hero, but she's lived that, it's the ultimate "been there, done that" for many women Hillary's age.  

    I think Hillary will do what she thinks is best for the country and if her on the ticket is the difference between another four years of a republican and dems getting the WH, she would do it.


    Strong women need ego stroking (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:57:49 PM EST
    They're human beings.  Everyone likes to be appreciated.  

    Being appreciate (to me anyway) (none / 0) (#134)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:52:29 PM EST
    is not the same thing.

    Hillary has never struck me as a person who needs a constant worshipping audience.  She's too busy working to get things done...

    but we all have our own view.


    Being appreciated (to me anyway) (none / 0) (#135)
    by Jjc2008 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:52:50 PM EST
    is not the same thing.

    Hillary has never struck me as a person who needs a constant worshipping audience.  She's too busy working to get things done...

    but we all have our own view.


    It won't matter (5.00 / 2) (#47)
    by dissenter on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:57:55 PM EST
    who is on the ticket with him with the 527's get done with him.

    I'm quite sure Hillary already knows what is coming. Just my two cents.

    She has NOTHING to gain, and neither does the country, by being Obama's sacrificial lamb.


    I could see Hillary as VP (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:00:12 PM EST
    with an older male President.  She'd be the natural to take his place once he's out of office.

    Unfortunately, an older male is the Republican nominee, not the Democrat nominee.  

    I really can't see Hillary as Barack's VP.  


    Unfortunately, an older male is the Republican (none / 0) (#156)
    by Amiss on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:21:58 AM EST
    nominee, and her brother was reportedly meeting with
    that same nominee yesterday according to CNN on the tube yesterday evening.

    It would not surprise me one bit for McCain to ask her, either.

    Just some food for thought, that I thought worth mentioning.


    I would support Obama if he chose (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:35:31 PM EST
    Hillary, because it would be a sign of intelligence as well as self-effacement.

    It is hard to believe (5.00 / 6) (#12)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:36:03 PM EST
    that any pick but Hillary could live up to all the hype they have been building.  I can't even imagine how the Text Message Heard Round The World could say EVAN BAYH.  That said, I really don't think Hillary will be the pick, which sets one camp or the other up for the biggest "I told you so" moment of all time.

    Can you see the bumpersticker? (5.00 / 3) (#29)
    by Jeannie on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:49:58 PM EST
    Obama Bayh Bayh

    Even if the text msg says Hillary (5.00 / 1) (#66)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:08:25 PM EST
    it will be anti-climactic. They've hyped this too much it is nerve racking.

    Yeah-- (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by stxabuela on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:24:35 PM EST
    I'm sick to death of all the coyness.

    Jeralyn is right (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:37:10 PM EST
    We need Ohio, Florida, and PA much more than Virginia.  (Bayh on the ticket won't flip Indiana)  Hillary is the only choice that will make a real difference in the campaign.  Without her, I don't see how Obama pulls it out.  

    I feel this is the worst year (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:40:24 PM EST
    for the Republicans in the past 40.  A ham sandwich should win.  I only want Hill on the ticket because I think someone who really knows what they are doing should be in the WH.

    I disagree (5.00 / 6) (#17)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:41:55 PM EST
    It would be a serious blunder to alienate the Jewish vote by nominating a ham sandwich.  Corned beef, on the other hand...

    Whitefish salad! (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:47:13 PM EST
    good choice... (5.00 / 4) (#33)
    by p lukasiak on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:52:05 PM EST
    especially if we move the election to a friday -- we'll pick up all the Catholic vote too!

    Alright, well things are so bad for the Repubs... (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:48:15 PM EST
    a veggie burger could win.  

    Sorry (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:57:31 PM EST
    Didn't mean to be difficult.  Just my rye sense of humor acting up.

    Hehehehe... (5.00 / 1) (#49)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:58:28 PM EST
    I love sandwich humor.  :)

    Heh, not in Kansas (none / 0) (#79)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:17:50 PM EST
    or the other cattle ranching states.

    Which cattle ranching states were you planning to (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:21:16 PM EST

    Montana and ND are (or were. . .) (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:22:36 PM EST
    within the realm of possibility.

    I've always thought that fantasy. (5.00 / 0) (#94)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:25:20 PM EST
    The numbers were real (3.00 / 0) (#99)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:27:57 PM EST
    Obama will absolutely improve on Gore and Kerry's numbers in the mountain west. Probably not enough to win any of them, though.

    Was responding to the (none / 0) (#113)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:35:07 PM EST
    vegetable sandwich comment :)

    There are cattle ranches in eastern Washington, and it's a blue state, though.


    Not just the Jewish voter (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:51:38 PM EST
    Muslims would have to reject the ham, as well.

    Jeralyn, from what I hear Obama saying (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by zfran on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:49:24 PM EST
    and see him doing, he doesn't care about the
    "blue-collar voters, rural voters, elderly voters and Latino voters in November." They are not part of his new dem party. He seems to want Reagan dems, repub lite and whatever conservatives he can get. Hillary is from the old dem party, Nancy Pelosi is thanking God for Obama, the young people like him because he has them thinking he is one of them (which is one positive part of his campaign, they always feel left out), altho' I think he'll desert them as well. He's had plenty of time since June to try and win back some of those votes he's losing. He is choosing not to for his reasons. It is sad, but seems so true.

    The thing about Hillary is that she's (5.00 / 10) (#28)
    by Anne on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:49:49 PM EST
    not stupid; she's been in the political world long enough to have assessed the pros and cons not just of being VP, but of being VP to Obama, and what the consequences are if she's on the ticket and they lose.

    I'm sure she can see exactly where Obama falls short in the demographics, and I'm sure she is also looking at the polls and watching the electoral map just like we are, and beginning to see the possibility that the Dems could really lose this election.

    She loves her country, and she loves her party, so I think it would come down to whether she would be willing to risk what a loss would mean to her future for the chance to, in essence, rescue Obama - and the party - from himself and put Democrats back in the White House.  Only she knows what she would do, but I have to think she already knows what she would do - and may already have told him one way or the other.

    I would like to think I would feel better about a Democratic administration if Hillary were a part of it, but I have so little trust in Obama's abilities, and so little idea what he really believes, what agenda he will end up advancing, that I still do not think I can vote for him.

    It may be that Hillary helps Obama win, but I'm not sure the price she would pay for it would be worth it.

    and, (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:55:56 PM EST
    as I said up-thread, who knows how tightly her hands will be tied or how cavalierly her advice and expertise will be ignored.

    To be a VP who can get things done is one thing.  To be a VP who is a silent scapegoat, who has to abdicate her own goals for the American People in order to follow what The One wants and who is forced to linger in the background and not deflect attention from The Administration and It's Goals is something I sincerely doubt Hillary would want to take part in.

    Besides, as you said, she's seen the demographic writing on the wall and how his campaign is being ... um, managed? and clearly sees how this might (will?) be lost in November.

    Best to wait and strengthen her record for 2012.


    If she's that vital to Obama... (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by goldberry on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:02:53 PM EST
    ...then make her the nominee.  Period.  Stop dicking around with a loser in the top spot.  If he can't survive without her, don't nominate him.  What kind of politician would take on this much responsibility for another person's success or failure.  Fergawdssakes, she's not his personal secretary.  She's a person and politician in her own right.  Her whole life and experience do not always have to refer to him.  They stand on their own.  
    The party has a choice to make: either replace the number one spot with the person they expect to save the party anyway, or lose for the third time in a row.  

    Ding, Ding, Ding (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by dissenter on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:08:41 PM EST
    We have a winner!

    Seriously (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:10:50 PM EST
    Make her the d@mn nominee if she's that important.  It's just more sexism to assume that she should help the less qualified guy get the job she wanted.

    Amen! (5.00 / 1) (#71)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:11:59 PM EST
    If the Democrats want to win this election, they need to put the winner at the top of the ticket, otherwise they risk losing again, for the third time.  

    The superdelegates were supposed to create an environment where the true winner would end up on top but they failed in their duty.  The only way to correct this is to put Hillary at the top!  Nancy and Howard (and Donna) ought to step aside for the sake of the party!  


    And, to make sure it doesn't happen again (5.00 / 0) (#76)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:15:52 PM EST
    these SD's need to fight real hard to keep their jobs making critical decisions for the people in this country.

    It's not like they have more courage (none / 0) (#100)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:28:00 PM EST
    Than anyone else in our party.  SD's  will not do the right thing to win the WH.  They'd be too afraid.  

    Which is why they need to (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:37:41 PM EST
    fight to keep their jobs. This is a good time for democrats who do have some courage to start planning for a 2010 run for congress and replace this crop.

    SDs did Exact Opposite of their job (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by pluege on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:53:22 PM EST
    SDs were invented to prevent an outlier that would be weak in the GE from manipulating the mechanics of the nomination process to win the dem nomination. This year SDs stepped in (Kennedy, Kerry, Richardson for example) to give the nomination to the outlier - exactly the opposite of what they are supposed to do.

    Didnt Donna (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by Amiss on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:36:13 AM EST
    Brazille announce very matter of factly on CNN that she would leave the Democratic Party if the nominee was selected by the SD's?  Of course she was only referring to the possibility of it being Hillary selected, but still......................Just sayin.

    The SD's could save the day (5.00 / 0) (#93)
    by Carolyn in Baltimore on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:25:18 PM EST
    With what we've been seeing from Party leadership the won't but truly this is what's needed.

    Absolutely! (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by RalphB on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:27:54 PM EST
    Make her the nominee, if she's needed so badly.

    It's his only ace in the hole (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by Saul on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:51:51 PM EST
    to cinch the election.  No other VP candidate would inspire the rest of the undecided  voters like Hilary will.  Even on the for instance polls she beats McCain better than Obama does.

    He's got to swallow  his pride and pick her.  

    Sometimes swallowing your pride and admitting you were wrong in saying those things against the Clintons will make you a better man and maybe earn you some respect.

    This old bit that the Clintons represent the past was fine when he started the primaries but he has become so much like a regular politician just like the Clintons, that this message of "I will be a different politician from the Clintons" just does not resonate any more with main stream America.

    If it is Hillary... (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by Buckeye on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:54:33 PM EST
    Then why was Bill still complaining about how Obama played the race card against him in the primary not very long ago on national TV?  Would Bill have done that if Hillary was still in consideration?

    Would Obama be thinking (5.00 / 4) (#39)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:55:43 PM EST
    of asking Hillary if he weren't tanking?

    No (5.00 / 1) (#54)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:01:11 PM EST
    But if he had a better campaign/media/messaging strategy, he probably wouldn't need her. Now he does.

    But (5.00 / 3) (#176)
    by Amiss on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:42:45 AM EST
    She is not just someone's whipping boy to be passed around "in times of need". I feel Obama's way of doing things is just like an abusive husband in a marriage, and it truly disgusts me of the way he thinks he can treat her and then have the gall to even think of asking her to "rescue" him only to be abused again. I think she is too smart to let that happen to her. I pray she will be looking out for herself this time, instead of the ungrateful arseholes that shoved him across the finish line to begin with.

    Good observation (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:21:27 PM EST
    The Big Dog is ready to 'splain everything in January regarding the INSANE and HIDEOUS charges of racism against the Clintons...THE CLINTONS for cryin' out loud!

    I keep forgetting things like this that should be little lamp posts for us Clinton supporters that HRC ain't gunna do it.  


    I dont think (none / 0) (#180)
    by Amiss on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:45:46 AM EST
    he really wanted to answer those questions but was put in a very bad position by that reporter. I think he actually threw himself back into his AIDS foundation work as a catharsis from the primaries and all that went on, especially by some of their so called "friends".

    Actually? (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by blogtopus on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:55:05 PM EST
    I think Hillary, should Obama lose with her as VP, would find a way to recover stronger in 2012 than she was this year. She'd have the 'underdog' status that helped Obama so much this year.

    I think it could work. I have THAT much faith in Hil.

    You made me smile. (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:00:57 PM EST
    At least for the hope of it.  I don't know if I agree, but I'd really like to believe.  Clap your hands, click you ruby slippers, I believe!  I believe!

    *ahem* (none / 0) (#78)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:17:30 PM EST
    John Edwards???????

    Not since Adali Stevenson (none / 0) (#103)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:29:56 PM EST
    Have the democrats nominated a losing candidate.  

    If I am wrong, I welcome corrections, but unlike republicans, democrats won't support someone who previously ran and lost.  We need to get over that, imo.  


    McGovern (none / 0) (#148)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:10:01 AM EST
    doesn't qualify for that position?

    McGovern ran for President prior to 1972? (none / 0) (#172)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:39:34 AM EST
    I wasn't aware of that.  Thanks!  

    what i meant (none / 0) (#173)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:40:35 AM EST
    was his attempt back in 1968.  not trying to be revisionist here.

    If all the recent polls showed Obama ahead by 7 (5.00 / 0) (#45)
    by Saul on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:57:39 PM EST
    points or more than he could say I do not need Hilary.  But that is not the case at the moment.  McCain is gaining ground every day when Republicans should be loosing like hell.   As sick as the public is about Iraq, and this Bush administration McCain is neck and neck with Obama when Obama should be pulling away like Bolt in the Olympics.

    he should pick Hillary and fire Axelrod. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:59:54 PM EST
    I still lean toward Sibelius (5.00 / 0) (#59)
    by lambert on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:05:05 PM EST
    It's the most insulting choice possible for Hillary voters, and a FAIL in every other respect as well.

    And if this is all the world's biggest headfake, and Hillary is the choice, at least I can vote for her.

    Naw (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:11:16 PM EST
    Hillary is not unaware of who she is and what she brings to the country through her service. She is not dependent on her worth being defined by other people's choices.

    Remember, her mentor is Bill Clinton, who chose Al Gore for the simple reason, he (WJC) might die.


    Besides Talk Left (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:06:49 PM EST
    Crooks and Liars was the only other blog I ever gave money too.  John's neutrality was COMPLETELY refreshing during the primaries.  

    I think that C&L's position is of significant note because of said neutrality.  As my animosity starts to melt, I am finding myself hoping that Obama picks a strong Democrat other than HRC, so it would maybe, MAYBE give me pause to think about voting for him.  

    Like JM, I would rather it NOT be Hillary.  I think it would be a hard pill to swallow for a lot of people.  I think that it comes from a position of weakness because of his recent flailings in the polls.  Besides, Hillary will be blamed for any and all things that may go wrong.  After the bruising primary, I would rather her NOT have to go through that.  It would be too much for ANY human.

    I think Obama should pick (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by Grace on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:07:09 PM EST
    either Richardson, Edwards, Daschle or Kerry.  

    That way, no one's eligibility to run in future elections will be affected.  

    TV pundits appear to be unanimous (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:12:52 PM EST
    that he absolutely, totally needs to pick Hillary.

    Andrea Mitchell says there's been intense activity at Biden house, but not at Bayh's.  She sez far-flung family members are gathering, lots of coming and going.

    It's Possible (5.00 / 0) (#91)
    by Athena on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:25:00 PM EST
    I keep thinking that he will pull the ultimate surprise and pick Clinton.  Although Paul Begala said tonight that it will not happen, and he's in her circle.  Of course that could be a fake.

    I thought Obama might panic and sign on with Hillary.  I'll see.

    Is it possible that 21st century American will have no woman on either Dem or GOP ticket when women are the majority voting and census bloc?  Yup.


    Sorry, I don't give Andrea much credibility (none / 0) (#108)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:32:23 PM EST
    It could be the family beach week for all she knows.  Why would far flung family come for an announcement that surely be somewhere other than Delaware?  

    Anything happening at the VA Governor's mansion?  Other than Obama spending the day there?  


    I was totally thinking family barbeque myself n/t (none / 0) (#125)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:45:34 PM EST
    You really need to pay more attention (none / 0) (#141)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:00:39 AM EST
    Andrea Mitchell has been around politics a very, very long time, pays attention to detail and rarely, if ever, reports as fact anything that isn't fact.  She's an old-school journalist who is quite careful to separate hard fact from speculation.  She does not claim Biden is definitely the choice, but she knows this is often a major sign of something being up from long experience.

    I forgot to include her observation that nothing's happening at Kaine's place, either.

    Really, family barbecue when this is in the wind?  I don't think so.

    What is entirely possible is that Biden out of his own ego has read his own tea leaves wrong and has gotten his family all excited for nothing.

    There's a media derangement syndrome around here that's just as foolish as Clinton Derangement Syndrom.


    Thank You (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by dissenter on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:03:39 AM EST
    I seriously was in need of a laugh tonight:)



    I just spit (5.00 / 2) (#175)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:42:40 AM EST
    my chocolate milk all over my desk.

    She's an old-school journalist who is quite careful to separate hard fact from speculation

    Yeah, so is that woman, what's her name...JUDITH MILLER?!!


    Oh really? (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:43:31 AM EST
    Andrea will do anything to help Obama win.  She did it on Sunday when she made up that stuff about McCain cheating at the Warren interviews and excusing Obama's bad performance on his being so tired and jet lagged from his vacation.   Boohoo.  She lost all credibility with me being so obviously in the tank for Obama.  

    I agree that (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by Andy08 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:13:22 PM EST
    if Obama had any sense he should have asked HRC soon after she made her speech suspending he rcampaign and/or hen they had that "unity" appearence back then.

    It looks really bad for him to do so now..imo.

    The more i think about it I think he'll go with Evan Bayh: (1) Obama needs Indiana back on his column badly (2) Bayh has lots of heavy weight credentials-- no doubt he can be POTUS  (3) He was a HRC supporter and thus they might think that would help with her supporters (I am highly skeptical of this though) (4) He doesn't overshadow Obama and Bayh is very photogenic : nice "visuals" which seems important to Obama's campaign...

    So that's my final bet: Evan Bayh. We'll see.

    I am starting to get very angry (5.00 / 5) (#74)
    by catfish on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:14:11 PM EST
    I have spent the last eight Bush years glued to the Internet (actually, more like 2003-2006) outraged. Now Obama is dragging out this veep thing to such a degree that even Jesus himself will be a let-down. It is celebrity culture at its worst, is an Obama presidency going to be this demanding of our attention?

    I am starting to really lose it!

    And of course, I need to just re-train myself to tune out politics.

    Obama made no move (5.00 / 4) (#77)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:16:34 PM EST
    to retire Hillary's debt.  With July numbers in, she still owes 11 million (plus the amount she loaned to her campaign.  One would think if he picked her, he'd have been a whole lot less reluctant to help with the debt.  I don't think it's Hillary.

    That was when he thought he wouldn't tank. (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:18:58 PM EST
    It was pre-tank.

    But he hasn't been doing anything lately (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:22:49 PM EST

    I think he really believes that whoever he picked has the qualifications and characteristics he mentioned.

    But it's not Hillary.


    You're very right (5.00 / 3) (#89)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:24:23 PM EST
    He made one very half-hearted request to a small segment of his support base.

    I don't honestly believe that Obama would work with Hillary. He can't wait to get her kicked into place under the bus.


    Maybe it's a good sign (none / 0) (#127)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:47:25 PM EST
    It's a sign that Hillary doesn't want the VP, and he knows it.  To avoid being rejected, he won't ask her to be the VP.  Being Obama (we've seen it), he's taking revenge by not helping with her debt.

    If not Hillary, then this big build-up will be (5.00 / 3) (#88)
    by DeborahNC on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:23:52 PM EST
    anti-climatic to many and perhaps counterproductive. That, along with the description he used to describe his VP choice today (easily interpreted as Clinton), would elevate the hopes of some Clinton supporters, only to have them dashed once again.

    Hillary, of course, will have to choose what she thinks is best for her and the country, but I think that Obama would be helping his cause to select her. After they appeared together in Unity, NH, his numbers rose. That's a fact.

    To me, it's a logical, winning strategy, irrespective of how I feel about her as his VP. His numbers are slipping, and he needs a boost, so if he doesn't pick her, then I think that his political acumen is questionable.

    bets on Matthews and Olberman getting tingles (5.00 / 3) (#97)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:26:46 PM EST
    up their legs. Actually that will be the most fun to watch: the in the tankers saying how brilliant the Biden (or Bayh or whatever notHillary) decision was.

    GAG (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:35:57 PM EST
    Yes, whoever it is will be yet another example of how completely BRILLIANT Obama is.  It will be the completely, 100%, PERFECT choice.  (Unless it's Hillary, of course.)  The press will be all tingly, including Andrea, Chris, and Keith.  

    ah, the three tingleers (5.00 / 2) (#142)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:01:54 AM EST
    one for all and all for ONE. :-)

    My .02 (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:26:17 PM EST
    I think that Hillary will not be Obama's pick for one very good reason:  Bill Clinton.

    I feel that Bill Clinton will be SOOOO intimidating to Obama that there would be NO way that it could happen.  If a "President" Obama did anything that looked remotely progressive, the media/pundit class will likely/possibly give credit to the Clintons 'working in the background'.  Policies will look "Clintonesque", when Barack will want them to be "Obamaesque".

    And let's not get into the whole Michelle Obama angle.  Like it or not, I am willing to BET that she has FAR more influence than one may think when it comes to these types of decisions.  Standing together, Obama appears very much second fiddle to the strong-willed and intelligent Mrs. Obama.

    very good point (none / 0) (#101)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:28:27 PM EST
    almost any ego would have a big problem being overshadowed by the Clinton's in that regard. And I think you're right, that could be the result during an entire Obama presidency. Hmm.

    I think someone with an ego (none / 0) (#110)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:32:52 PM EST
    but with the confidence to go along with it would not.  I think such a person would welcome the Clintons.

    In fact, I think if a Hillary clone were to morph into Obama, (s)he'd have no problem dealing with the Clintons...(if you understand my meaning here).

    Gotta have ego with confidence to be a good president.

    Ego with hubris doesn't cut it.


    yea, that combination reminds me of someone (none / 0) (#147)
    by DandyTIger on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:05:16 AM EST
    oh yea, our current president. Gosh our parties are creative in their nominating choices.

    Ok, here's some more tea leaves (5.00 / 3) (#109)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:32:33 PM EST
    Oh good god! (5.00 / 4) (#117)
    by Emma on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:37:48 PM EST
    Unbelievable (5.00 / 12) (#124)
    by dissenter on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:44:35 PM EST
    I am so sick of people blaming HRC for Obama's failings. What is this woman suppose to do....faint on the stage when she says his name?

    People need to grow up and realize lots of Americans are not robots and do not vote for someone because someone else told them to vote for that person. I guess Hillary should have gone to acting school instead of getting an Ivy League education.

    This party is becoming a total laughingstock. It embarrasses me. At this point, he should nominate Oprah.


    "It embarasses me" -- exactly n/t (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:52:28 PM EST
    Unbelievable. (5.00 / 2) (#118)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:39:42 PM EST
    So who wanted this story and why? (5.00 / 4) (#119)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:40:30 PM EST
    I don't like any of the answers.

    That's just terrible. This is just odd. (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:42:32 PM EST
    But, yeah, who and why indeed.

    I think it's the Hillary pushback article (none / 0) (#123)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:44:20 PM EST
    that Poblano was asking for.



    Read below (none / 0) (#162)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:27:47 AM EST
    Palm Beach Post has a different take on this.

    Tepid? Honest (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Athena on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:02:25 AM EST
    Hillary is just not that good at lying.  Good for her.

    Just what exactly would cause anyone to have extreme passion for Obama when there are no accomplishments to justify it?  Only those in the middle of a pop culture swoon are able to muster the devotion that he now expects.

    But not Hillary.  


    NYT (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Prabhata on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:42:18 PM EST
    That article is throwing sh*t on Hillary.  What does the NYT want? She can only say to the voters that she supports "The One" and that she supports their vote for "The One".

    Are the other people who also ran doing 1/10th of what Hillary is doing? NO.

    On the other hand, I think Hillary sees the polls, and she must be thinking that there is no point in working to hard for a loser.


    Or (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:45:46 PM EST
    maybe they had a private conversation that p*ssed her off.

    How much more in the tank (5.00 / 3) (#129)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:49:20 PM EST
    Can the MSM get?!  This is sickening.  Truly gag worthy.

    Shrug (5.00 / 2) (#131)
    by Steve M on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:51:32 PM EST
    The article makes it clear that the reaction of these people wasn't in any way justified by the way Hillary campaigned.  If it's a hit piece, it's a subtle one.

    It just shows that people are starting to understand that Hillary's word alone is not going to deliver all the people who supported her in the primary.  If only it were that simple.


    I think it's journalism with a purpose (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:53:29 PM EST
    and no, I don't think the Times is beyond that.

    Hillary's stock just went down in the veepstakes after spiking this afternoon.


    her STOCK (none / 0) (#155)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:20:54 AM EST
    went down????  Give me a freaking break.

    Just when I think I might just give Obama a chance I see this trail of catsick kinda comment and you push me right back to that PUMA mentality.

    Hillary's stock hasn't gone down, OBAMA'S HAS!  And the polls TELL YOU so!

    Da*n you for saying that.  Grrrr!!!!!!!!!!!


    Um, you realize that was an observation, (5.00 / 1) (#157)
    by masslib on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:22:30 AM EST
    not an opinion of hill's worth, right?

    Thank you (none / 0) (#160)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:24:33 AM EST
    sorry (none / 0) (#163)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:28:00 AM EST
    don't buy it.  i take it as an insult to Hillary's viability.

    I won't bother responding to any other explanation.


    In the veepstakes, like I said (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:30:33 AM EST
    And I thought enough of Hillary to vote for her in April. I also think she'd be a great addition to the ticket. I don't know what else you want from me

    Ooooooooooooo! (5.00 / 5) (#140)
    by Valhalla on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:59:35 PM EST
    I don't even have words for what a hatchet job that article was.  

    Her supporters are waiting for a signal from her?  Give me a freakin' break.  She's been signaling with the Guiness Book of World Records Biggest Semaphore since June what her signal is.  No one is waiting on her signal to support Obama, believe me.

    But this clears up something -- on Hardball (I think tonight and I think the link is upstream) Tweety said something about Clinton 'looking tired' in Florida, then he immediately followed it with something like 'who wouldn't be'.  I almost fell out of my chair, from him it's like an I love you smooch.

    So there you have it -- Chris Matthews being kinder to Clinton than the freakin' NYT.


    At this point, I just hope (5.00 / 5) (#146)
    by davnee on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:04:09 AM EST
    she packs up her tent and leaves the Obama circus permanently.  It's burning to the ground anyway.  Let her get out before they can crap on her anymore.  Let Obama rely on his assortment of fawning clowns and flying monkeys and see how far he gets.

    And can Obama be any more pathetic?  Seriously.  He can't even fight for his own votes.  He has to beg his one-time opponent to do all the work for him, and then piss on her when he tanks in the polls because he went on vacation.  Who is going to run the country if Obama manages to get into the White House?  Because that is hard work.  And we know Obama doesn't do hard work.


    This po's me for another reason (5.00 / 7) (#150)
    by davnee on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:12:57 AM EST
    Because maybe, just maybe, HRC was off her game today because she was tired and depressed and still reeling from the unexpected death of her dear friend Stephanie Tubbs Jones.  But that didn't stop her from being a good soldier.  And still they crap on her

    So sad (5.00 / 4) (#164)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:28:49 AM EST
    And Stephanie went everywhere for Hillary, eventually at some political cost to herself, I think. I will miss her.

    Well, I disagree (none / 0) (#171)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:38:18 AM EST
    and that's a really insensitive thing to say. Hillary has no reason to feel guilty for anything Stephanie did. Stephanie was standing up for what she, personally, believed. She was hardly the kind of person to pretend she stood for something she didn't just because it would impress a friend.

    wha???? (5.00 / 3) (#181)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:46:27 AM EST
    I'm going to give up now, because I have people misreading me left and right.

    I respect STJ and absolutely believe that she supported Hillary out of personal conviction.


    andgarden, your comment (none / 0) (#191)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:57:40 AM EST
    was explicit in saying that somehow Stephanie's career suffered out of loyalty to Hillary. That is really wrong. Stephanie shared many of the same beliefs as Hillary and she accepted full responsibility for that. If you meant something else, then reword it.

    Exactly (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:01:15 AM EST
    That's what I got (5.00 / 2) (#202)
    by eleanora on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:08:30 AM EST
    from andgarden's comment too. Rep. Jones' and her courage are going to be so missed in so many fights in the future. Great loss to the country.

    Agree JavaCity (none / 0) (#182)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:47:23 AM EST
    only a weak person would have that line of thinking, "oh wow i feel so bad for so and so because she was my friend and boo hoo."

    Congresswoman Tubbs-Jones was a giant of a woman and fought her own political battles.  I HARDLY doubt that Clinton or Tubbs-Jones had to provide cover for one another OR apologize or worry about what their stances meant.  They run/ran on PRINCIPLE.

    Wow, whatta concept!!!


    Then, it was worded wrong (none / 0) (#194)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:59:37 AM EST
    Your explanation speaks to personal threats, his speaks to political cost.

    Oh please (5.00 / 3) (#199)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:04:26 AM EST
    It is common knowledge that black politicians who continued to support Hillary into 2008 were taking a risk politically, and perhaps (though maybe not) otherwise.

    Why you would take anything I said as a negative comment on her is beyond me.

    You might be looking for a fight, but I am not.


    That' what I was thinking (none / 0) (#206)
    by nycstray on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 02:33:54 AM EST
    Nobody (media) seems to be taking that into account. She sent out a letter to her supporters today as she's compiling messages to send to STJ's son. Very nice letter. Really said a lot about both women.

    And wasn't it just last we they lost their friend in AR?


    I think the comments (5.00 / 2) (#159)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:24:14 AM EST
    with this article are selective. I would like to read more than one sentence from four people if that charge about not enough empathy is being made.

    Palm Beach Post

    Here is another version - quite different


    thank you for posting that. (5.00 / 2) (#183)
    by Valhalla on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:49:26 AM EST
    I needed an antidote to the NYT poison.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#166)
    by andgarden on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:31:21 AM EST
    The people in the pictures are really excited to see her.

    Lovely (none / 0) (#192)
    by eleanora on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:57:55 AM EST
    Thanks so much for posting that link. I love how clearly Hillary made her case for Obama, wish he could do the same. And the pictures were just beautiful! I needed a smile tonight :)

    I'm very concerned (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Prabhata on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:03:41 AM EST
    I'm holding my breath that The One is tanking, and to save himself, he gives the VP to Hillary. She should not take it.

    Rest assured, (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by FemB4dem on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:44:29 AM EST
    Obama will not pick Hillary as his VP.  If he had even an ounce of the political acumen his supporters credit him with, that's exactly what he would do.  He doesn't, and he won't.  This is an ego driven decision, and Obama's ego won't let him pick Hillary. For that reason, I don't think it will be Biden either, because that pick would make it obvious Obama agrees that he is weak on foreign policy.  It will be Kaine or Bayh.  I still think it's Kaine because of the Obama campaign's Virginia obsession.

    Kaine (5.00 / 1) (#188)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:53:57 AM EST
    Would fit Obama perfectly!  No ego clashes, Kaine worships Obama.  It's much more likely that they could turn Virginia blue than turn Indiana blue.  The later won't happen.  

    the electoral arguments (5.00 / 1) (#195)
    by Edgar08 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:00:05 AM EST
    remain unconvicing to me.

    Maybe the practical reasons go without saying, but I don't think they do.

    The sort of tragic dynamic appears impossible to transcend.  The insecurity that manifests a certain attitude where acknowledging something good about one person is interpretted as a weakness, a sort of admission that one lacks what the other person has.

    It's not gonna work if people saying "pick Clinton to win the election."

    It'll work when people can admit Clinton has something to offer an Obama white house without thinking they've emasculated Obama by admitting that.

    It appears the dem party is now too immature to make the following case to the American people:  hope, change, vision, COMBINED with the experience and know how to get things done.

    No. We're mired in "he needs her supporters" desparation.

    Well (5.00 / 8) (#204)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:10:12 AM EST
    It would work if people had a grasp of WHY he still "needs her supporters."  But they'll never get it.

    The conventional wisdom is that it's about personal loyalty to Hillary, and somehow, only Hillary has the magic power to get them all on board the Obama train.

    It never occurs to them that maybe, just maybe, the whole reason they preferred Hillary in the first place is that they liked some quality about her that they believe he lacks, and unsurprisingly, they still believe he lacks it.

    On another blog I raised this point today and was told by more than one person that gosh, the belief that Obama is short on experience is just so unsubstantiated that anyone who holds that silly belief is just using it as cover for racism.  So like I said, they will never get it.


    Hoping Obama Fails? (1.50 / 6) (#161)
    by TheElectricMessiah on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:25:03 AM EST
    Full Disclosure: I was not a Hillary supporter during the primary, but if she had won, I would have fully supported her.

    I think Hillary has too many negatives to be VP.  I am sure she would do a great job in the office, but she would give too much ammunition to the Limbaugh's and Savage's of the world.  Obama would spend too much time deflecting these attacks, reducing his time to go on the offensive.  I mean, if he TXT's "it's Hillary!" to my phone, I might throw it against the wall.  Our goal is a president who is a Democrat.  Can you imagine the slimy, smear ads the 527's will bring out against the Clinton's?  Vince Foster, Blue Dress, Crack, ad nauseum.  Everybody here knows those attacks.  

    My vote is Sebelius.  She fits Obama's post-partisan theme, being well-known for working "across the aisle."  She's a Democratic governor from KANSAS, and she's a pro-choice woman, for cripe's sake.  She won handily as a pro-choice Democrat in a very red state.

    I say, give Hillary a very broad mandate to work towards universal health care as the Sec of HHS. If McCain is elected, Roe v Wade is finished.  He's admitted it.

    Are you willing to give up Roe v Wade for some chance at Hillary in 2012?

    Brilliant (5.00 / 4) (#170)
    by Steve M on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:37:30 AM EST
    Because the Limbaughs and Savages are, of course, scrambling to find material with Obama as the nominee.  There's just nothing negative they can say about him, so they're hoping Hillary will be the VP so they can fill up all that dead air.  I'm glad you've been paying such close attention to the campaign so far.

    Full Disclosure: (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by JavaCityPal on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:41:51 AM EST
    Full Disclosure: I was not a Hillary supporter during the primary, but if she had won, I would have fully supported her.

    I think Hillary has too many negatives to be VP.

    The contradiction there is just too obvious. She has too many negatives to be VP, but not so many she couldn't have gotten your support for President.

    You have GOT to be kidding.


    there is no contradiction (none / 0) (#190)
    by TheElectricMessiah on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:54:50 AM EST
    Simply put. . . I'd rather have a Dem in the White House than a Republican.

    See my above comment, posted later.


    And I (none / 0) (#197)
    by dissenter on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:01:49 AM EST
    would like someone who actually stands for the things I do. If I can't have that, I will have to go with the adult and that isn't Obama

    my 1 rating (5.00 / 1) (#186)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:51:55 AM EST
    means the same thing.  

    Another troll (none / 0) (#169)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:36:50 AM EST
    If Bush43, didn't get rid of Roe v Wade it ain't gonna happen.

    The R's NEED the abortion issue to keep their voters engaged and something to fight for.  This argument is DOA.

    Try again.


    why call me a troll (none / 0) (#187)
    by TheElectricMessiah on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:52:11 AM EST
    Seriously, I'm stating my view.  Does it make me a troll because I don't want Hillary to be VP?

    Dubya didn't get rid of Roe v Wade because he didn't have another Justice to replace.  Is there any doubt that he would have put another Alito or Roberts on the bench if the opportunity arised?

    The R's don't need the abortion issue to keep their voters engaged.  I expect them to keep using many of their current arguments for some time to come.  San Francisco Values, Defense of Marriage, Guns, Muslims, Illegal Immigration (this one especially).

    Oh sure, they'll fight against abortion with their "pro-life" statements and "life begins at conception" arguments, but the reality is they are already losing this argument.  The voters of tomorrow (read: teenagers of today) take birth control, contraception, and abortion* as a given.  That argument will be dead in the next decade.  

    *I'm not arguing that there are a vast amount of voters who actually want to get an abortion.  I'm arguing that the teenagers of today view abortion as a last resort.  The Pill, condoms, etc., should be freely available to all.  And McCain WILL actively fight against the reproductive rights of women in this country.


    don't get too high on that horse (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by txpolitico67 on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:58:28 AM EST
    Senator Obama ALMOST voted for Justice Roberts but was advised NOT to if he decided to run for higher office.

    And I will speak on behalf of my mother, who has said that if these younger women want to support Obama, considering THIS action, let them fight for their reproductive and family planning rights the way she did.   My mom fought abortion foes back in the 1960s and 1970s.  She's 73 now.  I think that if these women today are so concerned they will think twice about Obama's track record, or really, the lack thereof.

    Try.  Again.


    I don't think he's a troll (none / 0) (#203)
    by Jeralyn on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 01:10:12 AM EST
    electric messiah posted here in June. As I wrote in one of those threads when people called him/her a troll, he hadn't violated any site rules, except perhaps one against posting false information about whether candidates had to remove themselves from the MI ballot.

    Please don't attack him for his point of view. All points of view are acceptable here. His comment does not deserve a "1" rating.

    I'd like everyone to feel welcome here.


    I wish he would pick her (none / 0) (#1)
    by americanincanada on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:28:15 PM EST
    but I am scared to death that Halperin is right and it's Biden.

    Hagel is scarier (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:29:30 PM EST
    and he better fits the description given IMO. The only closer match is Hillary.

    Except that I think the description (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by MarkL on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:32:21 PM EST
    Obama gave could be intended to make a dull choice like Bayh seem more exciting.

    But who would believe it? nt (none / 0) (#19)
    by jpete on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:45:27 PM EST
    What a letdown that would be (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:46:30 PM EST
    But it would really be birds of a feather with the rest of the campaign: exactly what Daschle would do, but with CHANGE.

    Interesting topical clip via Chris Matthews (none / 0) (#18)
    by Pianobuff on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:43:54 PM EST
    here.  It's a little glitchy in the middle but worth listening to until the end, if only to see how Matthews responds to some heat from a panelist on whether he was a part of media sexism.

    At .30, Hillary makes an interesting reference to Obama as her "opponent" (apparently from an event earlier today).  The term came in the middle of what appeared to be an overall positive statement so I'm not sure if too much can be read into that, but it's still an interesting word choice.

    It was very, very clear what Hillary said, and (none / 0) (#58)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:04:11 PM EST
    what she meant.

    She was speaking of what she's done since for the man who had been her opponent. I'm pretty sure that Dean would have framed his comment the very same way if he were commenting on bringing party unity about post his campaign against his opponent.

    Diane M was awesome in telling Matthews she started her blog because of HIM and his reporting against Hillary. She has her own blog, and she started "Just Say No Deal".


    It's Hillary... (none / 0) (#22)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:47:33 PM EST
    I just read the description and it's obvious it's Hill.  Someone about getting the job done.  Check.  Someone who challenges Obama.  Double check.  e thinks through decisions, ie, that's why it took him so long to just name the obvious.  It's Hill.

    I doubt it (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:51:07 PM EST
    I think he's just offering a Generic List to make his VP Pick seem enticing and to indicate he's put A Great Deal of Serious Presidential-like Thought into it.  

    But, at the end of the day, it'll just be words and we'll end up with Bayh or Kaine.

    Or he could shock the h-e-double hockey sticks outta me and choose her!

    But I seriously, seriously doubt it.

    Always love your Posts, though, masslib.


    Given I think the supers (none / 0) (#34)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:53:50 PM EST
    nominated the wrong candidate, and that the ticket should have been Clinton/Obama, I'm really just calling it as I see it.  I am incredibly conflicted, but that description says Hillary and only Hillary.

    I agree (5.00 / 4) (#41)
    by blogtopus on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:56:23 PM EST
    However, you forgot to add WORM to the equation.

    I agree (5.00 / 0) (#48)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:58:14 PM EST
    and believe a Clinton/Obama team would have been unstoppable.

    But that's not what we have right now.  I just don't see him offering it to her or her accepting it if it were offered.

    Yes, it WOULD make sense and, yes, it WOULD make it easier for him to win, but ... it just seems doubtful to me.



    Then he ought not have so blatantly described her. (none / 0) (#50)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:59:32 PM EST
    perhaps in his mind (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by ccpup on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:03:11 PM EST
    he was describing Evan Bayh or Tim Kaine or ... well, Mystery Pick #1.

    Who knows?  Remember, he does have this ability to speak in a mushy mouthed way which makes you think you hear one thing only to learn later he meant to say something entirely different.

    To you and me it sounds like Hillary.  But to Obama?  

    Guess we'll have to see who waits behind Door #1.


    Is he asute enough to pick (none / 0) (#23)
    by jpete on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:47:47 PM EST
    Hillary?  Is she selfless enough to agree? He probably won't win without her, in which case she'll will in 2012.  

    Just tuned in? (none / 0) (#35)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:54:03 PM EST
    Is she selfless enough to agree?

    Hillary knows better than anyone where her work will do the most good. She will make her decisions based on what is best for the country, not what's best for Obama.


    I agree. And I think that means (none / 0) (#42)
    by jpete on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 10:56:27 PM EST
    She'll accept.  But it is important to see that it isn't necessarily in her  interest to do so.

    Then why did you frame that as (none / 0) (#62)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:06:32 PM EST
    a question?

    Rhetoric. It definitely (5.00 / 2) (#81)
    by jpete on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:19:41 PM EST
    needs emphasizing that it is not necessarily in her interests.  And that he's comes late to the realization that picking her is in our interests.

    McCain Picks Romney? Obama Picks Biden? (none / 0) (#60)
    by Firewalker on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:06:13 PM EST
    Late tonight Mark Halperin on Time.com is reporting that 2 GOP sources have told him that McCain's VP pick is Romney. Meanwhile, Halperin says to bet on Biden. Ugh.

    If it's Biden... (5.00 / 6) (#75)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:14:39 PM EST
    this site is about to get alot more interesting.

    Tell me about it (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by txpolitico67 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:36:42 PM EST
    but in all honesty,  I feel that Jeralyn is probably just going to be more like "when u don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all" considering her support for the Democratic party, of which, I have the UTMOST respect for.

    Biden. Unbelievable.  I still think it's Kaine.  Kaine is Obama's ticket to ride in Virginia.  I think all the hype that the O camp is building on will, they hope, pay off in carrying VA by making Kaine the choice.

    Too bad places like OH, PA and FL aren't gettting so much consideration and attn.


    UGH is right (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:43:16 PM EST
    I agree that McCain will choose his opponent Romney.  Obama will not choose his opponent, Hillary.  His ego can't stand it.  

    Biden is a worse choice than Kaine.  He suffers from foot-in-mouth disease and will surely say something stupid before November.  AND, he is no help in any state.  

    UGH, UGH, UGH.  


    I liked Romney when he was gov (none / 0) (#167)
    by MichaelGale on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:32:05 AM EST
    of MA.  Maybe he will morph back

    Romney is a much better VP choice (5.00 / 2) (#185)
    by SueBonnetSue on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 12:51:18 AM EST
    Than Biden, Bayh or Kaine.  Romney has proven that he can run a state, and a business.  Republicans will rally around him and the Mormons will give buckets of money to the RNC and McCain.  

    would the VP pick actually know? (none / 0) (#85)
    by DandyTIger on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:22:28 PM EST
    I keep hearing stories of waiting for the call. And soon after the call is made, the announcement is made. Could it be that the VP choice hasn't been told? That's the impression I got. And if so, that would be funny if they picked someone who said no.

    Me, I'm back and forth between Biden and Bayh. I think those are most likely. I think Biden gives him some perceived gravitas and Bahy gives him the young change crap and can help with IN. Kaine's out IMO because of recent events here.

    I very enthusiastically and happily don't think it's Hillary. That would be demeaning, stereotypical sexism, and frankly a career ender for her. And just from that last point, I don't think she'd do it.

    He's got to have a fall-back (none / 0) (#105)
    by JavaCityPal on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:30:43 PM EST
    If Bayh says "no thanks", we can be sure Biden would accept.

    Remember, there has been a long list of people in both parties who have said they would NOT accept the slot if offered. Seemed it was playing at #1 on the Top 10 list for both R & D candidates for weeks post primary.

    I do not believe he would have picked anyone who he wasn't positive would agree.

    Hillary on the road today seemed to be irritated having to defend herself. She is NOT going to allow anyone to claim she didn't do enough to help him. That really made it appear she is not the pick.


    In Olbermann's Words (none / 0) (#92)
    by Pianobuff on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:25:03 PM EST
    Tonight Keith compared the possibility of an Obama selection of Hillary for Veep as a "last minute reprieve from the governor".  He also managed to give her a back-handed compliment on the good speech she gave when she "finally conceded".

    Don't 'ya just love him?

    No. I don't. :) (5.00 / 5) (#96)
    by masslib on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:26:37 PM EST
    No, and if she helps him win, it's Obama that (5.00 / 5) (#104)
    by Teresa on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:30:03 PM EST
    will be getting a last minute reprieve, not Hillary. What a creep Olbermann turned out to be.

    I can't stand the self important Olberman (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by SueBonnetSue on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:47:40 PM EST
    He's a total creep who I will never watch again.  He has no problem just making stuff up.  No wonder his ratings stink.

    So who was the inmate (none / 0) (#102)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:28:50 PM EST
    and who was the governor?

    Is he trying to say Obama would save Hillary by nominating her?

    That's the only interpretation I can gather from anything Olbermann would say.


    You've got it right (none / 0) (#106)
    by Pianobuff on Thu Aug 21, 2008 at 11:32:03 PM EST
    as if it would be a gracious act of mercy on Obama's part to lift Hillary out of her misery - at least that's how I took it.

    Using this VP announcement (none / 0) (#207)
    by Xanthe on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 07:08:14 AM EST
    like he's a promqueen who's about to pick the football quarterback or the class president for a date seems childish to me.  Why is he doing this?  What is the gain?  I don't see it.

    Get on with it already - Will this be his modus operandi when he has to make the big decisions.

    The only one who may be gaining something here is HRC as her name stays front and center.  

    Text this!  

    2 Obama VP truisms (none / 0) (#208)
    by pluege on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 07:21:46 AM EST
     1) HRC will not be picked

     2) The pick will be the worst possible for progressives and particularly progressive women.

    Obama/Clinton '08 Will Get My Vote (none / 0) (#209)
    by bmc on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 07:34:28 AM EST
    But that's the only Democratic ticket that will get my vote.

    So, Barack. The ball's in your court. You can prove you have some character, and are really thinking about the country and what is best for America.

    Or you can prove that your ego is more important than the rest of us. And, that...as the Eagles sing:

    You were just too busy being fabulous. Too busy, to think about us...

    I'm with Jeannie (none / 0) (#210)
    by DancingOpossum on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 09:14:56 AM EST
    And the others who say there's no benefit to Hillary in being Obama's VP. She has a lot more power right where she is than she would as a hamstrung and isolated VP, which is how I would foresee her role in an Obama administration. And then there's the whole "losing ticket."

    Yes, Hillary is extremely loyal to the Democratic Party and yes, she puts the good of the country high on her list. But she also has great personal ambition (I mean, she did run for president!!) and she's a Clinton: She plays for keeps. If Obama loses  the election, he becomes a political footnote. I very much doubt Clinton wants any part of being a footnote.

    I would be disappointed (none / 0) (#211)
    by Bluesage on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 09:45:58 AM EST
    If she were to accept a last minute "save me" offer from Obama.  The time for him to ask was within days of her leaving the campaign.  Now it just looks desperate and I believe anyone running on his ticket will be writing their own political obituary.  She will be the strongest voice in the Senate in 09 and will have a landslide win in 2012 if she goes for it again.  The true Democrats out here will not let Dean, Pelosi, Rahm, Donna and the rest manipulate another primary and stick us with the weakest candidate evah!

    Oh, and (none / 0) (#212)
    by Bluesage on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 09:49:54 AM EST
    John Amato and Nicolle have tried to stay neutral in their coverage but I rarely visit the site anymore because their readers are as brainwashed and drowning in kool-aid just as much as Kos, Huff Post and Americablog.  Too bad, it was a good site.

    An African American and a woman IS change (none / 0) (#213)
    by esmense on Fri Aug 22, 2008 at 10:04:29 AM EST
    Ground-quaking, electrifying, culture altering change. Over a year ago, before the indecencies of the primary season, when I was in "I'd be happy to vote for any of them" mood, I told friends that I would be dancing in the streets if either a woman or an African American got on the ticket -- but most especially if BOTH were on the ticket. But, frankly, I also predicted that there was NO WAY the Democratic party would have the balls to put BOTH on the ticket. Too much cultural change too fast.

    Even understanding that a ticket without a middle-aged to elderly white guy would be unimaginable for many people, I was not prepared for the hysteria the notion of a female leader would cause in the political culture. I did think that, as a culture, we had a little more respect for women, their public and private work, their contributions to society as a whole, their strength and intelligence, than it appears we actually do have. It seems we really only have three operative images of women in our culture; Paris Hilton, middle class consumer, and bitter, angry, man-hating (most likely but not always, old) hag. In our cultural concepts women are spenders, but not producers. Victims, but not heroes. Seducers, but not allies and defenders.

    With those as the culture's most operative ideas of what "female" means it is hard, and frightening, to make the leap from "female" to "leader of the free world."

    Obama/Biden, Obama/Kaine, etc., don't represent any change that is anything other than skin deep.

    Obama/Clinton changes everything forever.

    It would have done so much more powerfully the other way around -- with the genuinely experienced and senior person at the top of the ticket. But, nonetheless, Clinton as VP would represent some progress for women. A step toward full respect and acknowledgement of our strengths and contributions.